Sand bar landing gone bad, no injuries.

http://tdn.com/news/local/article_bb3db7d6-29c7-11e0-a1fb-001cc4c03286.html

"Dave said the buddies don't take risks when flying."..Landing airplanes obviously has it's risks...even on gravel bars. Glad he didn't get hurt.

Sounds like the Feds are involved, is he in trouble for flying it out of there?

Is it normal to be wearing a helmet for this kind of flying? Just wondering.

Eckair wrote:Is it normal to be wearing a helmet for this kind of flying? Just wondering.

Normal? Probably not. Recommended? Desired? Definitely yes.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6089

If it can happen to Carey Gray and Coyote Ugly, the rest of us are screwed.

Terry wrote:Sounds like the Feds are involved, is he in trouble for flying it out of there?

He could make a reasonably strong case for needing to get the airplane out on an emergency basis, to prevent further damage from vandals, weather, the river rising, etc.

In general, if nobody is hurt, and nobody on the ground has their property is damaged, and nobody calls the FAA complaining about crazy pilots buzzing them... the FAA usually has better things to do than pursue enforcement on this sort of thing. But if there are news reporters out there and press coverage, they are forced to "investigate".

EZFlap wrote:

Terry wrote:Sounds like the Feds are involved, is he in trouble for flying it out of there?

He could make a reasonably strong case for needing to get the airplane out on an emergency basis, to prevent further damage from vandals, weather, the river rising, etc.

Nope, There are few legitimate excuses for flying an unairworthy airplane without a ferry permit, except in the extremely rare instance where human lives are at stake. And, just saving the airplane isn't sufficient justification to fly an unairworthy airplane.

If the river rises while you're waiting for the ferry permit, call the insurance company. Read the regulations. They say that the airplane must be in an airworthy condition to fly. Ferry permits aren't that difficult to get, but they require that a MECHANIC, not a pilot, inspect the subject airplane, and verify that it can be safely flown on the ferry flight.

An airplane on its back with a prop strike. What happens if the crankshaft was damaged in the nose over? And, it finishes breaking right after takeoff, as you fly over that river, that COLD river?

I'm glad he didn't get hurt, and I hate to see stuff like this reported in the press.

If you have a mishap, don't say squat to the media folks. NADA. Nothing good will generally come from discussing an airplane accident or incident with members of the media.

MTV

The story said "experimental" Cub. If the pilot was the builder can he inspect it and certify it and then fly it? And if that's the case it would it take a log entry?

Eckair wrote:Is it normal to be wearing a helmet for this kind of flying? Just wondering.

Probably save him from a bad headache in this situation!


How does the fact that the plane is an expiremental change how the FAA will deal with flying it out?

Glidergeek wrote:The story said "experimental" Cub. If the pilot was the builder can he inspect it and certify it and then fly it? And if that's the case it would it take a log entry?

That's what I wondered too. I'm not that familiar with experimentals but it seems to me if he is the builder he can determine airworthiness?

I suppose they probably meant 160hp engine, not 60.

An Experimental category airplane still has an airworthiness certificate, and it's still required to be maintained and flown in an airworthy condition. The builder of one of these airplanes may opt to modify the airplane, but if he modifies it substantially (and no, I don't know what that means), then the airplane must go back into a test period, and it is subject to all the initial test restrictions. And it has to be blessed by the FAA.

I am NOT saying this gets done in every case, mind you.

BUT, in this case, if the owner was the builder, and has a repairmen's certificate for the airplane, he could inspect the aircraft and request a ferry permit from the FAA without having a mechanic inspect it first.

Ferry permits can be issued over the telephone, by the way.....

MTV

As an experimental, there is no restrictions on the engine (ie prop strike etc.). If the "repairman" deems it airworthy there is no reason to get the FAA involved. If it just went over on its back ( I have seen it done with little to no dammage done to the plane) flip it over, put a prop on it and fly it home. You will know real quick on a good run up if the crank is bent or not.

Bent crank is not the only issue. And, one crinkled rib is structural, and therefore unairworthy. I think this stuff probably gets done a fair amount.

But, again, if the media shows up, DON'T talk to them. Be polite, go about your business, don't identify yourself, ask them not to video tape (good luck), etc.

If it hits the news, someone in the FAA is likely to see it. May not end up in any big deal, but....if it qualifies as an accident (anything structural or someone hurt bad) you cannot move the airplane until the FAA/NTSB gives you clearance. Lots of ways to get crossed up with the enforcers on one of these deals.

You got a damaged airplane, why would you want to make it worse, by creating a paperwork nightmare, and possible legal actions?

MTV

mtv wrote:Bent crank is not the only issue. And, one crinkled rib is structural, and therefore unairworthy. I think this stuff probably gets done a fair amount.

But, again, if the media shows up, DON'T talk to them. Be polite, go about your business, don't identify yourself, ask them not to video tape (good luck), etc.

If it hits the news, someone in the FAA is likely to see it. May not end up in any big deal, but....if it qualifies as an accident (anything structural or someone hurt bad) you cannot move the airplane until the FAA/NTSB gives you clearance. Lots of ways to get crossed up with the enforcers on one of these deals.

You got a damaged airplane, why would you want to make it worse, by creating a paperwork nightmare, and possible legal actions?

MTV

Just thinking How about carry a can of spray paint to paint over your N# before the media and anybody else show's up? Or your can use duct tape to cover up your number and ID plate. I know this would be the last thing on most pilots mind. But as long as all occupants are safely out of the wreckage and no fire. Might be something worth doing if you can.

Actually, I know of one instance where that was done.....

MTV

58Skylane wrote:

mtv wrote:Bent crank is not the only issue. And, one crinkled rib is structural, and therefore unairworthy. I think this stuff probably gets done a fair amount.

But, again, if the media shows up, DON'T talk to them. Be polite, go about your business, don't identify yourself, ask them not to video tape (good luck), etc.

If it hits the news, someone in the FAA is likely to see it. May not end up in any big deal, but....if it qualifies as an accident (anything structural or someone hurt bad) you cannot move the airplane until the FAA/NTSB gives you clearance. Lots of ways to get crossed up with the enforcers on one of these deals.

You got a damaged airplane, why would you want to make it worse, by creating a paperwork nightmare, and possible legal actions?

MTV

Just thinking How about carry a can of spray paint to paint over your N# before the media and anybody else show's up? Or your can use duct tape to cover up your number and ID plate. I know this would be the last thing on most pilots mind. But as long as all occupants are safely out of the wreckage and no fire. Might be something worth doing if you can.

Or you could hide it (N#) behind a big cake eater

Glidergeek wrote:
Or you could hide it (N#) behind a big cake eater